PDA

View Full Version : u mean tiger isnt free to mac x users? :(


skdfhorn07
04-29-2005, 07:32 PM
im crushed! i thought tiger would be just another system update! wasn't panther???

mark hunte
04-29-2005, 07:42 PM
Nock..nock...nock...hello McFly... :D


No and No, what ever gave you that idea???

EDIT** Always wondered what trolling was, and now I Know,just looked it up for the first time. comes from a fishing term for baiting
Was not my intension, more meant to be cheeky :o

yellow
04-29-2005, 07:44 PM
[Not a help request, moved to Coat Room, no trolling please]

AHunter3
04-29-2005, 07:44 PM
Nope. Nor Jaguar before that. Puma (10.1) was a free update to Cheetah (10.0) but it's been about 12 Hamiltons for each of the other major upgrades.

Also not free: 9.1, if I remember correctly (9.0.x users had to buy it); 9.0 from 8.x; MacOS 8.5 was a major upgrade to 8.1 and you had to buy it; I think 8.1 was free if you had 8.0 (which was a dog pushed out before it was housebroken, so it would make sense for Apple to offer 8.1 as a freebie); 8.0 cost money, 7.6..., um, don't remember, but I'mm thinking that we had to pay for it as well; all the 7.5.x upgrades were freebies for owners of 7.5 but 7.5 itself cost money (unless, possibly, you had one of the really early PowerMacs that ran on 7.2?); and 7.1 started the trend, being something you had to buy to upgrade from 7.0.x or earlier.

Before that it was all free.

saint.duo
04-30-2005, 07:25 PM
9.1 was free, and still is for 9.0 users ;)

Paid upgrades in the past:
7.5 (now free)
7.6
8.0
8.5
9.0
10.0
10.1 (if you didn't get it in a specified time period of it being released)
10.2
10.3
10.4

Phil St. Romain
04-30-2005, 08:01 PM
That's how I remember it, too, saint duo.

Apple spent $200 million developing Tiger; it's a major upgrade and one can't blame them for wanting to recoup some of those expenses.

Major upgrades with OS X seem to come in 0.1 increments, which is different from the way things worked in OS 9 and before. While they charged for both 7.5 and 7.6, these came years apart and 7.6 seemed quite significant. I think their numbering sequence got squeezed during the lead-up to 10.0, or else 7.6 might have been 8.0, and so forth, except that would have meant that 9.0 was 10.0. So we can probably continue to expect that 0.1 increments will be major upgrades until we get to 11.0, at which point it will be interesting to see if they keep the OS X name.

- - -

Opening post was trollish, but it seems some good discussion has come of it. Carry on.

yellow
04-30-2005, 08:04 PM
Hehe.. Mac OS The Tap (It goes to 11!!)

AHunter3
05-01-2005, 12:50 PM
I regarded the version-incrementing beginning with MacOS 8.0 to be examples of version inflation, and I'm glad to see it settling back down.

System 6 was around for a nice long time and still never got past 6.0.8; System 7 only slowly made it to version 7.6 and by all rights all of MacOS 8 could have been System 7.7 (MacOS 8 = 7.7, MacOS 8.1 = 7.7.1) or 7.8 (8.6); MacOS 9 would more reasonably have been System 7.9 (7.9 through 7.9.5 perhaps).

I'm glad Tiger is MacOS X 10.4 and not MacOS 14 or something.

styrafome
05-01-2005, 01:17 PM
If you want to know how much effort they put into Tiger...
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/21

...it sure looks like $129 worth of work to me.

RacerX
05-02-2005, 04:04 AM
System 7 only slowly made it to version 7.6 and by all rights all of MacOS 8 could have been System 7.7 (MacOS 8 = 7.7, MacOS 8.1 = 7.7.1) or 7.8 (8.6); MacOS 9 would more reasonably have been System 7.9 (7.9 through 7.9.5 perhaps).
I don't know about that... Mac OS 8 was a massive change over 7.x in just about every measurable respect. Mac OS 8 was the first introduction of technologies that were developed for Copland including multitasking and partial protective memory.

A good example of the difference between 7.6 and 8.0 can be seen in just copying a file or emptying the trash. In 7.6 you have to wait for those processes to finish before doing anything else on the system, in 8.0 and later they can continue in the background letting you get back to working on other things.

I can remember being pretty amazed at how incredible Mac OS 8 was when first using it and even now (I still have a number of systems that are running 8.1 and 8.6). I have a hard time moving to a system with 7.x because of the lack of multitasking (I feel like I'm being forced to wait for the system).

Now if you want to argue that Mac OS 9 could have just been another Mac OS 8.x release, I would whole heartedly agree. Mac OS 9 was not a significant change from 8.6 (not enough to justified a whole version number jump). Mac OS 9 could have been Mac OS 8.10 with 9.1 being 8.11 and 9.2 being 8.12 (9.2.1 would be 8.12.1 and 9.2.2 would be 8.12.2). As far as I'm concerned I consider Mac OS 8.x/9.x to be one version of the Mac OS in the same way that System 7.x was, but 7.x and 8.x/9.x are worlds apart.

AHunter3
05-02-2005, 01:28 PM
While that was undeniably cool, the Thread Manager had been around for some time and there were known 3rd-party hacks that would toss such activities into background threads and let you continue working. I seem to recall SpeedDoubler's file copy did that, for instance. (Mind you, my memories of my System 7.5.x days are a bit rusty)

jeffo
05-02-2005, 03:51 PM
one clarification on something that phil illuded to though.

X.1 was required to be updated from a CD that was supplied by apple for free, but those are pretty rare these days and somehow i ended up with two of them? and i only got one originally. i don't even know where the second came from.